Overview
Title
To provide for the water quality restoration of the Tijuana River and the New River.
ELI5 AI
H.R. 9640 is a plan to make the rivers that run between the U.S. and Mexico, called the Tijuana River and the New River, cleaner by reducing pollution and working with both countries on this problem. The plan promises money and teamwork to clean the rivers, but it needs more detailed rules to make sure everything is fair and clear.
Summary AI
H.R. 9640, known as the "Border Water Quality Restoration and Protection Act," is a proposal aimed at improving the water quality of the Tijuana River and the New River, which flow across the U.S.-Mexico border. The bill outlines plans for cleaning and restoring these rivers by reducing pollution and managing stormwater, focusing on collaboration with local, state, federal, and Mexican government agencies. It includes funding provisions for implementing restoration projects and specifies the creation of a comprehensive action plan to address water pollution issues. The bill also authorizes agreements with Mexico to tackle cross-border water quality challenges collaboratively.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
This piece of legislation, referred to as "H.R. 9640," is aimed at tackling water quality issues specifically concerning two major rivers that span the United States-Mexico border: the Tijuana River and the New River. Given the significant pollution and water management challenges affecting these rivers, the bill seeks to establish programs and allocate resources towards their water quality restoration and public health protection. It outlines the formation of distinct programs for each river, identifies the necessary cooperation between U.S. and Mexican stakeholders, and sets provisions for funding infrastructure improvements in border regions. The bill also includes mechanisms for monitoring, planning, and reporting on initiatives undertaken to improve water quality.
Summary of Significant Issues
The bill presents several issues:
Ambiguity in Governance and Implementation: Key roles such as the "Administrator" and "Secretary" are defined but left open to political appointments, potentially causing instability in the bill's implementation.
Accountability and Funding: The bill calls for significant federal investment to address water quality issues but lacks detailed accountability mechanisms to monitor spending. The broad discretion given to administrators in entering agreements and allocating funds could lead to inefficiency or favoritism.
Complexity and Timelines: Developing an action plan for water quality within one year, as required by the bill, may be overly ambitious given the substantial coordination required among various stakeholders.
Limitations on Project Scope: The exclusion of projects aimed at developing new water supplies could limit the bill's effectiveness in addressing some critical water issues.
Bureaucratic Layers: The intricate layers of coordination and consultation between federal, state, and international entities may lead to inefficiencies and delays in program implementation.
Potential Broad Impact on the Public
The bill primarily aims to improve water quality and public health in regions directly affected by the Tijuana and New Rivers. Such improvements could have widespread benefits, including enhanced environmental conditions, improved public health, and potentially expanded recreational opportunities. However, there are concerns regarding the efficiency and effectiveness of these initiatives due to the potential bureaucratic red tape and lack of transparency in funding allocations.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Local Communities: Residents of areas surrounding the Tijuana and New Rivers stand to benefit significantly from improved water quality and public health measures. However, local stakeholders may experience frustrations with bureaucratic delays.
Federal and State Governments: These entities are likely to shoulder the burden of administering and funding programs, which could strain resources if not managed effectively. The complexity and broad discretion afforded to officials could lead to uneven implementation.
Environmental Organizations: While these groups may support the bill's goals, they might be concerned about the lack of specific accountability mechanisms and project transparency, which could hinder effective advocacy and oversight.
U.S.-Mexico Relations: The bill emphasizes cooperation with Mexican authorities, potentially strengthening diplomatic ties. However, the need for their approval on projects could be a stumbling block, slowing progress.
In conclusion, while H.R. 9640 aims to address critical environmental and public health issues, its success could be impeded by its inherent complexities and lack of clear guidelines on governance and funding mechanisms. The impact on specific stakeholders will largely depend on the bill's implementation and the efficiency of coordination between multiple jurisdictions.
Financial Assessment
The bill "Border Water Quality Restoration and Protection Act" focuses on addressing water quality issues in the Tijuana River and New River, involving financial appropriations and funding mechanisms to support these initiatives. Here is an analysis of the financial references in the bill and how they correlate with the raised issues:
Financial Appropriations and Allocations
The bill authorizes financial appropriations aimed at supporting the water quality restoration efforts for both the Tijuana River and the New River. Specifically, it authorizes $50,000,000 per fiscal year from 2025 to 2035 for both the Tijuana River (Section 105) and the New River (Section 205) restoration programs. These financial allocations are intended to remain available until they are fully expended, providing long-term support for the planned initiatives.
Connection to Identified Issues
Lack of Detailed Accountability Measures (Sections 101 and 103): The bill acknowledges significant federal investment in the restoration projects. However, issues arise due to the absence of detailed accountability measures or guidelines for distribution of funds. This could lead to inefficiencies or favoritism, as highlighted in Issue 1. Without specific accountability protocols, itâs unclear how the appropriated funds will be monitored and used effectively.
Exclusions of New Water Supply Projects (Section 301): While extensive funding is authorized for improvements to existing water infrastructure, new water supply projects are notably excluded. This exclusion potentially limits the ability to address critical water issues that might require developing new sources, rather than merely improving existing systems. The financial implications here indicate a narrow focus, possibly overlooking broader opportunities for addressing water scarcity challenges.
Broad Language on Grants and Assistance (Sections 105 and 205): The sections granting authority for financial assistance use broad language, which may introduce ambiguity concerning eligibility. Such broad criteria can lead to challenges in maintaining accountability and ensuring that funds are allocated effectively and efficiently. This connects to Issue 6, where ambiguity might result in misallocation or sub-optimal use of financial resources.
Administrative Expenses and Transparency (Sections 106 and 206): The bill lacks specific guidelines for administrative expenses associated with implementing these projects. This absence can lead to administrative cost inefficiencies and reduced transparency about how much of the allocated money is spent on administration versus actual project activities. Issue 7 highlights the potential for administrative cost bloat under such conditions.
Complex Legal References (Section 106): The use of complex legal references without clear explanations may deter general understanding and participation from key stakeholders, as indicated by Issue 8. This could affect transparency in how funds are planned and used, especially when stakeholders are not able to fully grasp the legislative language regarding financial planning.
Summary
The "Border Water Quality Restoration and Protection Act" includes substantial financial allocations to enhance the water quality in both the Tijuana and New River watersheds. While the appropriations are significant, their effective use is potentially hampered by issues such as a lack of accountability measures, ambiguous eligibility criteria, exclusion of potential new water projects, and insufficient transparency in managing administrative costs. Addressing these concerns could enhance the efficiency and efficacy of the financial resources committed by this bill.
Issues
The definition of 'Administrator' and 'Secretary' in Section 2 may lead to ambiguity due to these positions being subject to political appointments, which could affect the consistency and implementation of the bill.
In Section 101 and Section 103, there is mention of significant Federal investment without detailed accountability measures or distribution guidelines, potentially leading to inefficiencies or favoritism.
Section 104 outlines a timeline for developing a water quality action plan within 1 year, which might be too ambitious given the complexity and number of stakeholders involved, risking expedited decisions and oversight.
The exclusion of new water supply projects in the definition of 'eligible project' in Section 301 may limit the ability to address certain critical water issues that require new sources rather than improvements to existing infrastructure.
Section 103 provides the Administrator with broad discretion in entering into cooperative agreements and memoranda of understanding without defined transparency or accountability measures, potentially inviting conflicts of interest.
In Sections 105 and 205, the broad language concerning grants and assistance could lead to ambiguity in determining eligibility and violate accountability norms without clear criteria.
Section 106 and Section 206 lack specific guidelines for administrative needs and expenses, creating potential for administrative cost bloat and lack of transparency in fund management.
The use of complex legal references, such as in Section 106, may limit transparency and understanding for general readers unfamiliar with legal documents, potentially excluding key stakeholders from effective participation.
Sections 103 and 203 establish multiple layers of coordination and consultation which could lead to bureaucratic inefficiencies and delays.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title; table of contents Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines the title and contents of the "Border Water Quality Restoration and Protection Act," which includes multiple titles focusing on improving water quality and public health in areas like the Tijuana and New Rivers, developing water quality action plans, providing grants and assistance, and handling border water infrastructure improvements. It details specific programs, plans, and roles for interagency agreements and reports related to these objectives.
2. Definitions Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
In this section of the bill, several terms are defined, including titles like "Administrator" and "Secretary," geographical features such as the "New River" and "Tijuana River," as well as organizations and concepts like "Indian Tribe" and "water reuse." These definitions help clarify who and what the bill is referring to when it uses those terms.
101. Findings; purpose Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Congress finds that the Tijuana River, which spans the United States-Mexico border, suffers from significant pollution issues due to untreated sewage and stormwater, affecting both the environment and public health. To address these concerns, Congress aims to establish a collaborative program with Mexican and U.S. entities to coordinate water quality restoration and protection efforts, accompanied by necessary funding to improve conditions in the Tijuana River watershed.
Money References
- (a) Findings.âCongress finds thatâ (1) the Tijuana River flows across the United States-Mexico border, through the southern United States, and into the Pacific Ocean; (2) 3â4 of the 1,750 square mile watershed of the Tijuana River lies in Mexico, and the remaining 1â4 includes the Tijuana River National Estuarine Research Reserve in the United States; (3) the Tijuana River National Estuarine Research Reserve is a partnership of Federal and State agencies, including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, California State Parks, and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service; (4) the Tijuana River is a significant estuary and watershed, providingâ (A) economic and health benefits to the citizens of the United States and Mexico; and (B) environmental benefits as critical habitat to shore birds; (5) the economy of communities in southern California, including smaller communities, such as the City of Imperial Beach, and larger municipalities, such as the City of San Diego, may be significantly affectedâ (A) if the natural beauty and recreational opportunities of the Tijuana River are degraded; and (B) due to public health and environmental impacts; (6) the Tijuana River watershed is in the midst of an environmental crisis, as stormwater flows from the upper watershed, originating in Tijuana, Mexico, carrying pollutants such as bacteria, trash, and sediment that severely affect water quality; (7) coastal communities in and near the Tijuana River watershed are also affected, during certain tidal events, by a combination of treated wastewater and chlorinated-only wastewater discharged from the San Antonio de los Buenos wastewater treatment plant located 5 miles south of the United States-Mexico border in Tijuana; (8) as reported by the Government Accountability Office in February 2020, transboundary flows of untreated sewage, combined with unmanaged stormwater, bring bacteria and other contaminants into the Tijuana River Valley watershed and beaches in the United States; (9) sediment flows into the Tijuana River National Wildlife Refuge and blocks the flow of ocean water and creates an imbalance in water salinity, necessary for marsh plants, fish, and birds; (10) before the date of enactment of this Act, the City of Imperial Beach has experienced more than 1,000 consecutive days of beach closures due to the ongoing influx of sewage, industrial discharges, and trash from the Tijuana River due to risk to human health; (11) flows of untreated sewage, chemicals, and pollution from Mexico jeopardize the health of Border Patrol agents and limit the ability of those agents to operate in areas affected by these flows; (12) a March 2020 report of the Environmental Financial Advisory Board of the Environmental Protection Agencyâ (A) found thatâ (i) âstormwater knows no jurisdictional boundaries ⌠and is a principal cause of water quality issues nationwideâ; and (ii) adequate funding to manage stormwater pollution lags behind the investments made in wastewater management and the delivery of safe drinking water by decades; and (B) concluded that Federal investment will be required to addressâ (i) the lack of State and local funding; and (ii) multi-jurisdictional stormwater management needs; (13) during the 10-year period before the date of enactment of this Act, Federal, State, and local governments and others have identified the benefits of using natural and green infrastructure to control and manage stormwater runoff, including wetlands, coastal dunes, and retention structures; (14) during the 20-year period before the date of enactment of this Act, the United States and Mexico, through the International Boundary and Water Commission, have agreed to resolve the pollution problems in the Tijuana River; (15) the International Boundary and Water Commission has negotiated 9 Minutes to resolve water quality problems in the Tijuana River, among other subjects; (16) 1 of the most recent Minutes authorized the construction of the South Bay International Wastewater Treatment Plant in San Ysidro to treat, on average, 25,000,000 gallons of sewage from Tijuana per day, which has reduced the sewage coming into the United States; (17) the sewer system of Tijuana isâ (A) aging and deteriorating; and (B) insufficient to meet the needs of a quickly growing population; (18) in August 2023, Tropical Storm Hilaryâ (A) caused more than 2,000,000,000 gallons of contaminated water to flow across the border; and (B) exacerbated vulnerabilities at the South Bay International Wastewater Treatment Plant; (19) on January 22, 2024, a record-breaking storm caused the Tijuana River to reach the highest flow ever recorded for that river at 14,500,000 gallons per day; (20) from January to June of 2024, an estimated 33,551,000,000 gallons of wastewater, treated water, and stormwater flowed from Mexico to the United States; (21) on June 17, 2024, a pump station failure resulted in approximately 302,000 gallons of untreated spilling onto the public right-of-way; (22) during the 2-year period before the date of enactment of this Act, transboundary flows occurred on 317 days, on average, each year; (23) those transboundary flows contain treated wastewater, raw sewage, and urban runoff, with most of those flows associated with wet weather and stormwater; (24) during the 2-year period before the date of enactment of this Act, unprecedented dry weather flows reached approximately 10,043,000,000 gallons; (25) abnormal dry weather flows and sediment have caused pump failures, oppressive odors, and public health concerns; (26) the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) has established a stormwater permit program under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, under which municipalities have the responsibility to manage and treat stormwater; (27) because of the international border and different treatment systems and standards, discharges in Mexico to the Tijuana River are not treated to the same standards as the standards to which discharges would be treated in the United States; (28) the International Boundary and Water Commission negotiated Minute 320 to find solutions for water quality, trash, and sediment in the Tijuana River; (29) the International Boundary and Water Commission negotiated Minute 328 to implement sanitation infrastructure projects in Tijuana, Baja California, and San Diego, California, that will be financed with a total joint investment of $474,000,000; (30) the United States has invested at least $300,000,000 for secondary wastewater treatment in the Tijuana River Valley by the International Boundary and Water Commission and the Environmental Protection Agency through the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement and Minute 328; (31) the Environmental Protection Agency and the International Boundary and Water Commission selected Alternative 2, as described in the final programmatic environmental impact statement of the Environmental Protection Agency and the International Boundary and Water Commission entitled âUSMCA Mitigation of Contaminated Transboundary Flows Projectâ and dated November 2, 2022, and selected in the record of decision of the Environmental Protection Agency and the International Boundary and Water Commission entitled âJoint Record of Decision for the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement Mitigation of Contaminated Transboundary Flows Projectâ and signed on June 9, 2023; (32) the United States has also helped fund water and wastewater infrastructure along the border through the Border Water Infrastructure Program and the North American Development Bank; and (33) however, as the Government Accountability Office found in the report described in paragraph (8)â (A) the longstanding environmental and health problems associated with transboundary stormwater flows continue; and (B) while the International Boundary and Water Commission has taken the first steps to conduct long-term capital planning to resolve existing problems by proposing and analyzing alternatives, analyzing costs, identifying solutions, or establishing time frames, significant additional investment from the resources of Federal, State, Tribal, local, and Mexican entities is needed to improve the water quality of the Tijuana River watershed. (b) Purposes.âThe purposes of this title areâ (1) to establish a Geographic Program to plan and implement water quality restoration and protection activities; (2) to ensure the coordination of restoration and protection activities among Mexican, Federal, State, local, and regional entities and conservation partners relating to water quality and stormwater management in the Mexican Tijuana River watershed and the American Tijuana River watershed; and (3) to provide funding for water quality restoration and protection activities in the Mexican Tijuana River watershed and the American Tijuana River watershed. ---
102. Definitions Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
This section explains terms related to the Tijuana River watershed, distinguishing between its American and Mexican portions. It also describes the Tijuana River Public Health and Water Quality Restoration Program, including its director, and defines water quality restoration and protection as efforts to improve water quality and manage stormwater using natural methods.
103. Tijuana River Public Health and Water Quality Restoration Program Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Tijuana River Public Health and Water Quality Restoration Program establishes a plan to protect and restore the Tijuana River's public health and water quality. The program involves coordination between numerous federal, state, and local agencies, as well as indigenous tribes and nonprofit groups, to implement science-based restoration activities, projects, and funding strategies, with ongoing cooperation formalized through agreements with U.S. and Mexican authorities.
104. Water quality action plan Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section mandates the creation of an action plan to improve the water quality of the Tijuana River watershed, with input from relevant entities. The plan will include existing efforts, specific projects, criteria for prioritizing actions, funding options, and details of projects on both sides of the U.S.-Mexico border, ensuring the protection and restoration of the watershed's water quality.
105. Grants, interagency and other agreements, and assistance Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section authorizes the Administrator to provide grants and technical assistance to various entities, including governments and nonprofits, for priority projects. It allows for interagency agreements, sets criteria for grant allocation, and permits the construction and maintenance of projects, with up to $50 million authorized annually from 2025 to 2035. The section also includes provisions for cost-sharing, administration of funds, and a possible transfer of funds to the Commissioner.
Money References
- â (1) IN GENERAL.âThere is authorized to be appropriated to the Administrator to carry out this section $50,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2025 through 2035, to remain available until expended.
106. Annual budget plan Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The President is required to include estimates of spending and proposed budget details for various projects and administrative expenses in their annual budget submission to Congress. This information must cover the current year, the next budget year, and the following five years, and should include details for projects listed as priorities and for each federal agency involved.
107. Reports Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section mandates that the Administrator must submit a report to Congress within one year of the act being enacted and every two years afterward. This report should include details about projects that received funding, their status, and an evaluation of how well each project is being operated and maintained.
201. Findings; purpose Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Congress provides an account of the historical context and severe pollution issues of the New River, along with past initiatives and current efforts to restore and protect the water quality and habitats of the river through cooperative projects involving the United States, Mexico, and other stakeholders. The goals include improving water management, sustaining habitats, enhancing public access, and increasing public engagement and scientific research to ensure effective and lasting water quality improvements.
Money References
- (a) Findings.âCongress finds thatâ (1) the New River was born out ofâ (A) occasional flows of the Colorado River into the Salton Sink; and (B) the erosion of the New River channel, which formed the deep river canyon between 1905 and 1907; (2) the New Riverâ (A) starts in Mexicali, Mexico; (B) flows north into the United States through Calexico; (C) passes through the Imperial Valley; and (D) drains into the Salton Sea approximately 66 miles north of the international boundary; (3) the sub-watershed of the New River covers approximately 750 square miles, of which 63 percent is in Mexico and 37 percent is in the United States; (4) the New River has been widely recognized for significant water pollution problems, primarily because of agricultural runoff, raw sewage, pesticides, and discharges of wastes from domestic, agricultural, and industrial sources in Mexico and the Imperial Valley; (5) by the 1980s, the New River acquired the reputation of being 1 of the most polluted rivers in the United States, with many pollutants in the New River posing serious human health hazards to local populations, particularly in Calexico and Mexicali; (6) in 1992, Minute 288 of the International Boundary and Water Commissionâ (A) established a sanitation strategy for the water quality problems of the New River at the international border; and (B) divided sanitation projects into 2 immediate repair projects, the Mexicali I and Mexicali II, thatâ (i) totaled approximately $50,000,000; and (ii) were funded by both the United States and Mexico through the North American Development Bank; (7) in 1995, the Environmental Protection Agency provided funds to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board to monitor and document the water quality at the international boundary on a monthly basis; (8) in the late 1990sâ (A) the United States and Mexico spent $100,000,000 (of which 45 percent was paid by Mexico and 55 percent was paid by the United States) to build the Las Arenitas and Zaragoza wastewater treatment plants; and (B) after the construction of those plants, untreated water from the New River was passed through 4 microbial treatment cells at the Las Arenitas wastewater treatment plant, which was then chlorinated and fed into a reforestation project along the desiccated Rio Hardy, which stretches to the Sea of Cortez; (9) a 10-year effort by community groups, lawyers, regulatory agencies, and politicians addressed the problem of water quality in the New River at the source byâ (A) federally funding a new sewage treatment plant in Mexicali; and (B) developing a site plan for the portion of the New River in the United States; (10) in 2009, the State of California required the California-Mexico Border Relations Councilâ (A) to create a water quality plan to study, monitor, remediate, and enhance the water quality of the New River to protect human health; and (B) to develop a river parkway suitable for public use; (11) in 2012, the California-Mexico Border Relations Council approved the strategic plan for the New River Improvement Project that was prepared by the New River Improvement Project Technical Advisory Committee; (12) in 2016, the New River Improvement Project Technical Advisory Committee revised the recommended infrastructure of the New River Improvement Project, and the State of California appropriated $1,400,000 to provide grants or contracts to carry out the necessary planning, design, environmental review, and permitting work; (13) the revised New River Improvement Project includes the installation of a large trash screen, a conveyance system, aeration devices, a new pump station, and managed wetlands; and (14) the existing and ongoing voluntary conservation efforts at the New River necessitate improved efficiency and cost effectiveness, increased private sector investments, and coordination of Federal and non-Federal resources. (b) Purposes.âThe purposes of this title includeâ (1) coordinating water quality restoration and protection activities relating to the New River among Mexican, Federal, State, local, and regional entities and conservation partners; and (2) carrying out coordinated restoration and protection activities relating to the New River and providing technical assistance for those activitiesâ (A) to sustain and enhance fish and wildlife habitat restoration and protection activities; (B) to improve and maintain water quality to support fish and wildlife, as well as the habitats of fish and wildlife; (C) to sustain and enhance water management for volume and flood damage mitigation improvements to benefit fish and wildlife habitat; (D) to improve opportunities for public access to, and recreation in and along, the New River consistent with the ecological needs of fish and wildlife habitat; (E) to maximize the resilience of natural systems and habitats under changing watershed conditions; (F) to engage the public through outreach, education, and citizen involvement to increase capacity and support for coordinated water quality restoration and protection activities relating to the New River; (G) to increase scientific capacity to support the planning, monitoring, and research activities necessary to carry out coordinated water quality restoration and protection activities relating to the New River; and (H) to provide technical assistance to carry out water quality restoration and protection activities relating to the New River. ---
202. Definitions Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
In this section, the bill describes key terms such as "program," which refers to the California New River Public Health and Water Quality Restoration Program. Additionally, it defines "water quality restoration and protection" for the New River watershed as efforts to improve water quality, manage stormwater, and use natural infrastructure to reduce pollution and prevent flooding.
203. California New River Public Health and Water Quality Restoration Program Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The California New River Public Health and Water Quality Restoration Program is established to improve water quality and public health around the New River, involving coordination with various federal and state agencies, organizations, and the Government of Mexico. The program includes developing and implementing restoration activities, providing grants and technical assistance, and entering into cooperative agreements to enhance water quality and public health outcomes.
204. Water quality action plan Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section details an action plan developed by the Administrator in collaboration with specified entities to enhance and protect water quality in the New River watershed. This plan, to be issued within one year and updated every five years, will include criteria for project selection, necessary funding amounts, and potential funding sources. It also involves creating a priority list of projects to manage and treat wastewater and stormwater, using scientific assessments and coordinating funding efforts to address water quality and transboundary flow issues.
205. Grants, interagency and other agreements, and assistance Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The text outlines how the Administrator can provide grants and work with other agencies to support projects in the U.S. and Mexico, outlining criteria and funding details for these activities. It also mentions that $50 million is authorized annually from 2025 to 2035 for these purposes, and that the Administrator can use up to 5% of this money for administrative expenses.
Money References
- â (1) IN GENERAL.âThere is authorized to be appropriated to the Administrator to carry out this section $50,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2025 through 2035, to remain available until expended.
206. Annual budget plan Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The President is required to submit a detailed budget plan to Congress every year, outlining estimated expenses and proposed funding for various projects, including administrative costs, over the current year, the next budget year, and the following five years. This plan must cover all projects, especially those on a priority list, for each federal agency mentioned in a specific section of the law.
207. Reports Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section requires the Administrator to submit a report to Congress one year after the law is enacted and every two years after that. The report must describe projects funded under the title, their current status, and evaluate how well each project is being operated and maintained.
301. United States-Mexico border water infrastructure program Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section establishes a program to help fund and support water infrastructure projects near the US-Mexico border. The projects must address health or environmental issues, focus on benefiting the US, and be legally and environmentally compliant, and they cannot be for new water supplies or enable new development. The program prioritizes the most impactful projects and allows for collaboration with various governmental agencies.
401. Role of the Commissioner and international agreements Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines the power of the Commissioner to manage water quality projects in the Tijuana River and New River watersheds, including the ability to work with Mexico on joint projects. It also states that projects partially in Mexico can receive U.S. funding if they meet certain criteria, and clarifies that the International Boundary and Water Commission's authority is not limited by this section.